Clock is ticking for the end of the lunch 'hour'

Published on Tuesday 29 January 2008 18:52

ON DAYS when the weather is not fit for man or beast, I spend my lunchtime conversing with colleagues, patiently wait my turn to denigrate this week's bête noire pupil.

These de facto group therapy sessions are addictive but, like any drug, there are highs and lows. When on one's high horse about the abject bad behaviour of a teenage malcontent, the combined release of anger and endorphins gives Sir a giddy pleasure that helps see him through the remainder of the day. The downside is constantly listening to tales of woe is bad craic and ultimately leads to the demoralised teacher seeking cognitive behaviour therapy.

On fair-weather days, I often drive to Budhill Square in Glasgow's east end, a few miles distant from the school, well away from the madding crowd. There is a good choice of graffiti-covered benches to sit on, although in my experience it is unwise to sit too close to the long-bearded man conducting animated external dialogues with himself.

Alternatively, one can opt to relax in Budhill Park and see every kind of canine banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act running wild and free under the malevolent stare of their tattooed owners, who invariably swing somewhat redundant leather leads. But, the way things are going, my tranquil lunchtime sojourns will soon be nothing more than a memory (or flashback). Across the country, more and more secondary schools are shortening the lunch break. In its recent publication, Further Food for Thought, HMIE found the secondary school "dinner hour" varied from… erm… an hour to as little as 40 minutes.

For old saws like me, the very idea of a 40-minute break is unconscionable. When I began my career, a midday break of an hour and ten minutes was the norm. This enabled young staff to play badminton or five-a-sides: older pedagogues dozed off, sorry, had a Bill Clinton-esque power nap. Many pupils went home for lunch and came back refreshed: others had gone home unexpectedly and been hurriedly introduced to mum's new "friend".

In my opinion, the reasons put forward by proponents of a shortened lunch break are spurious. It is claimed that, because there is less time available to kids, there are fewer opportunities for them to get up to mischief. Remarkably, this is exactly the same argument expounded by God-fearing, Victorian manufactory owners who vehemently opposed a reduction in the hours worked by child labourers (the devil makes work for idle hands). Why stop at 40 minutes? Give education's Olivers no lunch at all and watch the number of playground incidents tumble!

It is also said eating into the dinner time will encourage children to dine in the school canteen. In my opinion, forcing teenagers to eat in a canteen is an unhealthy option, as it strips them of personal, responsibility for their eating habits. The jobs of some dinner ladies are at risk, say some, because of low uptake of school meals. Hmm, let me get this right. Teachers and pupils are to have a pitiful lunch break in order to save the employment prospects of canteen staff? What next? The school run to be banned to protect the jobs of FirstBus drivers? If we kraal kids inside the school premises, as some have proposed, jobs will go in the snack bars and convenience stores that depend on pupils bursting out at lunchtime like Gazans at the Rafah January sales. Laying a siege hasn't worked for Israel, and it won't work in our schools.

A truncated lunch break means the end of lunchtime clubs. Due to childcare issues, many female staff running such enterprises can't switch to an after-school arrangement.

The real victims are those who will be the brunt of this short-sightedness: the pupils. In the hothouse schools of today, which constantly push for greater levels of attainment, kids, more than ever, need sufficient time to socialise with peers, a period to unwind from the rigours of learning.

I'd rather eat myself than agree to a 40-minute lunch.